4 ms·

I did say that 3 awards out of about 30 submissions was unusually high. There are always topics for which no awards are made. Many have only one award. 100 t

I did say that 3 awards out of about 30 submissions was unusually high. There are always topics for which no awards are made. Many have only one award. 100 topics is about how many are in each list of SBIR/STTRs circulated on topics as diverse as new techniques in field medicine to better translation to new power storage mechanisms. It would require considerable technical range to propose to them all and succeed. You do not get to make up your own topics. They are posted by Program Managers working for the government. If you attempt to propose to more than one personally in an SBIR/STTR cycle you will lose. That is in part how my first two failed. I find it takes a considerable effort to put together a good AND short proposal. Then there is the catch that you must inform all agencies of similar proposals sent previously or at the same time to other agencies (so you can't win two with one proposal). Proposals are judged against your ability to execute upon award. The bottom line is that the odds are quite a bit lower than 10%. My advice is go read the solicitations and then get out and meet the program managers a'la Steve Blank. You will learn a lot and your proposal will benefit from it. It is a tough process but does seem to reward determination. One last word - keep yours, government contracting is a small town. I hope this helps you assess the risks and how you can reduce them. Best of luck!

DenisM 17y ago
I am not proposing applying 100 times, I am proposing a way to asses the expected outcome. The award size itself is not sufficient to know if it's worth the time spent, because you may not get that award. Taking the award size and multiplying it by the probability is a quick way to see if it's worth the effort. For example, playing lottery your expected outcome is less than the entry price even though awards are staggeringly high. Does it make more sense now?
- rfreytag 17y ago
  10% is optimistic. Below a certain funding level you are not Ramen-profitable for a multi-year contract. Expected value meet empty cupboard.
  - DenisM 17y ago
    They have funded 395 out of 2067 submissions in 2007, so the my estimates were even too conservative: http://www.nsf.gov/eng/iip/sbir/phaseI_map.ppt http://www.nsf.gov/eng/iip/sbir/phaseI_map.ppt Another poster indicated the money comes with no strings attached, other than quarterly reporting. Is there a multi-year contract I have missed?
    - rfreytag 17y ago
      First the simple question: the gap between Phase I end and Phase II start is often quite long. There are other process and IP-related issues (with DoD, NSF might be different). Your estimate assumes that if you compete you have at least an average ability to win. This is very probably an inaccurate assumption. In my opinion, if you go in cold you are unlikely to have an average probability of winning on even a minority of the topics unless you are highly expert in the field of the topic and bring something utterly original yet reasonable to execute for the funding. Assuming you do know the topic at a far-above-average level - you might not know how to write a good proposal, or understand what the proposer is really asking for, or be seen to be able to execute successfully, or be able to commercialize the result of the effort (maybe not as important to NSF as of a few years back) to name a few; but you get the idea. Fundamentally, your odds depend on a fit with the topic and your personal ability to execute this type of process. That is why your odds go up after you successfully execute once. Lastly, do a lot of legwork before proposing - figure a generous amount of out-of-the-chair legwork into your expected value calculations. Look around for colleagues that have done this and pick their brains.

DenisM 17y ago

I am not proposing applying 100 times, I am proposing a way to asses the expected outcome. The award size itself is not sufficient to know if it's worth the time spent, because you may not get that award. Taking the award size and multiplying it by the probability is a quick way to see if it's worth the effort. For example, playing lottery your expected outcome is less than the entry price even though awards are staggeringly high. Does it make more sense now?

rfreytag 17y ago
10% is optimistic. Below a certain funding level you are not Ramen-profitable for a multi-year contract. Expected value meet empty cupboard.
- DenisM 17y ago
  They have funded 395 out of 2067 submissions in 2007, so the my estimates were even too conservative: http://www.nsf.gov/eng/iip/sbir/phaseI_map.ppt http://www.nsf.gov/eng/iip/sbir/phaseI_map.ppt Another poster indicated the money comes with no strings attached, other than quarterly reporting. Is there a multi-year contract I have missed?
  - rfreytag 17y ago
    First the simple question: the gap between Phase I end and Phase II start is often quite long. There are other process and IP-related issues (with DoD, NSF might be different). Your estimate assumes that if you compete you have at least an average ability to win. This is very probably an inaccurate assumption. In my opinion, if you go in cold you are unlikely to have an average probability of winning on even a minority of the topics unless you are highly expert in the field of the topic and bring something utterly original yet reasonable to execute for the funding. Assuming you do know the topic at a far-above-average level - you might not know how to write a good proposal, or understand what the proposer is really asking for, or be seen to be able to execute successfully, or be able to commercialize the result of the effort (maybe not as important to NSF as of a few years back) to name a few; but you get the idea. Fundamentally, your odds depend on a fit with the topic and your personal ability to execute this type of process. That is why your odds go up after you successfully execute once. Lastly, do a lot of legwork before proposing - figure a generous amount of out-of-the-chair legwork into your expected value calculations. Look around for colleagues that have done this and pick their brains.